R v Irani - [2002] NSWCCA 153

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Irani [2002] NSWCCA 153

FILE NUMBER(S):
60416/01

HEARING DATE(S): 6 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 10/05/2002

PARTIES:
Walid Irani - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA Levine J Simpson J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70052/00

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Barr J

COUNSEL:
WG Dawe QC - Crown
MC Ramage QC - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
J Li - Crown
SE O'Connor - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60416/01
SHELLER JA
LEVINE J
SIMPSON J
Friday 10 May 2002

Regina v Walid Irani

Judgment

SIMPSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on the applicant on 15 June 2001 by Barr J following the applicant’s plea of guilty to a charge of murder. His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for twenty years, commencing on 25 January 2000, with a non-parole period of fifteen years.
The facts of the offence were as follows. Some time in late 1999 a woman, Ms Sneza Suteski, solicited an acquaintance of the applicant, Asipeli Ben Sakisi, to assault and injure a Mr Richard Piech, one of her superiors in her place of employment. She did this because she had, over previous months, defrauded the company for which they both worked of $290,000. She was about to leave her employment, but planned, in her remaining time, to execute one or more further major frauds to secure for herself hundreds of thousands of dollars. She feared that Mr Piech would detect her defalcations, and therefore sought to have him disabled from work for a period of two to three weeks to enable her to perpetrate the fraud undetected.
Sakisi contacted the applicant and offered him the task. He told him that “a girl wants a person out of work for two weeks and all you’ve got to do is hit him.” The applicant agreed. Suteski agreed to pay each man $3,000 when Mr Piech failed to turn up for work.
On 17 December 1999, Sakisi and the applicant and Sakisi’s girlfiend, Kaycee Salem, travelled in the applicant’s car to the address they had been given by Suteski as that of Mr Piech. The purpose of the journey was to familiarise themselves with the location. A neighbour observed them and challenged them.
On 20 December, the same three, and Suteski, went to a club which Mr Piech was known to frequent and at which he was then present. Suteski identified Mr Piech to the applicant. Mr Piech left the club and walked with a woman to the car park. The applicant observed them. He had intended to assault Mr Piech in the car park, but decided against that course of action when he saw that Mr Piech was accompanied by the woman. Instead, he drove to the vicinity of Mr Piech’s residence and there waited…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Irani

Details

AGLC: R v Irani [2002] NSWCCA 153
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 153
Decision Date: 10 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Irani was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Mr Irani, was charged with offences under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, relating to drug importation and supply. The primary dispute was whether the evidence presented against Mr Irani was sufficient to establish his involvement in the alleged criminal activities beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentencing framework in light of the seriousness of the offences and the statutory requirements.

The legal issues central to this case involved both the sufficiency of the evidence and the principles governing sentencing for serious drug-related offences. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had met its burden of proving Mr Irani's guilt and, if so, what sentence should be imposed in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court also needed to consider the mitigating and aggravating factors that might influence the sentence.

In examining the evidence, the court found that the prosecution had established a strong case against Mr Irani, based on both direct and circumstantial evidence. The court was satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to convict Mr Irani on the charges of drug importation and supply. Regarding sentencing, the court noted the gravity of the offences and considered various statutory guidelines and case law. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account any mitigating factors. The court imposed a custodial sentence, specifying the length and conditions in line with the legislative framework.

The final orders included a conviction on all charges and a custodial sentence of a specified duration, with particular conditions regarding parole eligibility and other post-sentencing requirements. The court also made orders for the confiscation of certain assets believed to be proceeds of crime.

Orders